A Voice in the Emptiness

Written 13 July 2020 while contemplating the isolation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

It seems too trite to talk abstractly about connection,
The theory of it: needs, modes, and dimensions,
When one starts wondering if hell
Is rows of soulless computer screens
And I'm the only one in the building.

I struggle to say what's the significance
Of hearing another's voice,
And how I feel if I read words
That I know someone typed just a few minutes ago.
"They were just here," I think.
"They are well. Someday we will meet face to face."
Hearing what is truly another's voice
Means I'm not alone.

And yes, there's the awkwardness when others make strange demands,
And the pain of disconnection from a person right in front of me,
But isn't that better than the deep worry
That I'm supposed to be just fine by myself?
(Yet sometimes the demands of loneliness
Are easier to face than the demands of others.)

Faith looks like hoping that I'm worth being heard
And that there's a time when I will be heard
And admitting I'm afraid that I won't hear another in their turn.
And faith looks like being ready
To hear another's voice in the emptiness.

Democracy, Truth, and Animal Farm

I just finished reading Orwell's Animal Farm, and my biggest takeaway was how important truth is to a democracy. The general idea of a democracy is that the population gets to vote on what approaches they'd like to apply to their problems and whom they trust to deliver solutions. We can only make intelligent decisions about what and whom to vote for if we have a basic agreement about what's going on in the world. We don't even have to agree on what our problems are, but we do have to work towards some shared understanding of what life is like, why it's like that, and how the world really works.

We need to have leaders who have allegiance to the truth and allegiance to reality. We need to ask ourselves: "Does this person understand how the world really works -- how well does s/he understand reality?" And, "Does this person believe s/he should be truthful?"

If we are committed to understanding the truth, then we can work towards understanding how the world really works. If someone does not have a commitment to truth, then that person isn't trying to be grounded in reality, and eventually those who ignore truth start acting as though something is true just because s/he asserted it.

A politician who has no allegiance to truth is someone who should not be our leader because disrespecting truth is undermining democracy. I suppose everyone is used to politicians spinning everything, but even in spin there are degrees of selfishness versus openness to truth, because everybody struggles with whether to pursue their own selfish interests in place of pursuing truth. We need to be aware of who among our leaders cares so much about being popular that s/he cares less about truth.

Marriage Is Shapeless

We are waiting to find out which set of five Justices on the Supreme Court will have their way on what "marriage" should mean. But words that mean whatever we want them to mean end up not meaning anything after a while.

When I listened to the arguments of the pro-gay-marriage side, I got the impression that one of their main arguments was: A couple should be able to get a marriage license when their level of commitment to each other is high enough. After all, the divorce rate shows that society has already decided that a couple can get a divorce when their level of commitment to each other gets low enough.

That's a subjective definition of marriage because it's based only on what two people say about their feelings.

One of the main arguments of the more traditional side is: The definition of marriage was given to us as being between a man and a woman.

That definition actually leaves something out, though. The definition of marriage the human race started out with was: marriage is between one man and one woman for life.

It hurts me to say that because about half my friends — my good friends, too — are divorced.

For a long time we could work around the "for life" part by understanding it to mean that marriage is between a man and a woman until one of them starts acting like the other one is dead or starts playing dead themselves. (I'm speaking broadly. That's always been a messy problem.)

My point is that defining marriage subjectively doesn't work very well because I don't think it ever was the case that most people who had enough commitment to get married had enough commitment to stay married. It used to be that once a couple got married, many didn't stay married because they felt so wonderfully committed; rather, they stayed together for the kids' sake, or for the sake of economics, or they were afraid of what people would think of them (a.k.a. societal pressure), or just out of habit. Marriage had a sort of predefined "shape," and couples conformed.

But the time came when society no longer exerted that pressure. Society no longer expected two people who vowed "till death do us part" to mean that. Society decided marriage was no longer an institution that started with vows before a god and supported by the community, but marriage was just a contract to be kept as long as reasonably possible. (And I gather that a lot of my now-divorced friends kept trying to save their marriages way past the "reasonably possible" line. Let's all remember that whatever we think about whether and how "being married" is a right, it's not a right we can ever exercise on our own.)

So now, in mainstream American society, I wonder if "marriage" is meaningless because it's only subjective. I do think it's gotten very — "shapeless" might be a good word — on a level that's deeper than what the roles of the husband and the wife are. I mean it's shapeless in a way that resembles how all organisms that have no skeleton to hold them up are just blobs.

I'm single. I really don't want this to end here, with cynicism. I don't want to deny the good that several married couples have brought to my life because they were married, starting with my parents, who celebrate their 44th anniversary this month.

So I will look for some other ending to this story.

What if the Border Patrol Stops You (in 2015)

On April 1, the Texas Standard (the radio show) had a five-minute segment on Customs and Border Patrol stops. (If you want to listen just to that part, it starts about 7 minutes into the show.) The Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints as far as 100 miles north of the southern border of the United States. Because they have been doing that so far north, a lot of people have been affected.

The Texas Standard wanted to find out what the Border Patrol is authorized to do and what people's rights are. They interviewed a lawyer who works with the Texas branch of the ACLU to find out. She (the lawyer) said:

• The Border Patrol can legally stop someone for no particular reason (they don't need to have a probable cause).
• The Border Patrol can ask questions to find out whether a person is authorized to be in the United States.

A person doesn't have to answer questions that go beyond that and can remain silent. Some people who have remained silent have been delayed or arrested.

The lawyer recommended that people cooperate with the Border Patrol and, if they believe their rights are violated, enter a complaint later.

Since this was only a five-minute segment, I felt that it left a lot of questions unanswered, but at least it explained that much about how the U.S. Government works.

Two Takes on Prosecuting the Drug War

These two blog posts are takes on the same news story:

1. The Rewards of Substantial Assistance: Pedro and Margarito Flores were awarded a sentence reduction from life to 14 years because they became valuable informers against the Mexican drug cartels.

2. Did feds just win the drug war?: kingpin twin drug dealers get kingly sentencing break thanks to cooperation

The first is a post I wrote for my job at a law firm. Naturally enough, then, it presents the story from a defense lawyer's point of view in order to help those who find themselves defendants now.

The second post brings up more systemic questions, however: Is this approach an effective way of prosecuting the drug war? Is there a better way to reduce the flow of drugs from Mexico into the USA?

Quote Log: Foundations Are

Michael Pollan on foundations (the physical kind, the kind that go four feet into the ground):
"A foundation rooted this deeply can be counted on in a way that, say, some philosopher's idea of the truth cannot, no matter how 'grounded' he claims it to be. For one thing, I don't have to subscribe to its meaning in order for it to work. It doesn't mean; it just is — something hard and real and unambiguous … "
— Michael Pollan in A Place of My Own (New York: Penguin, 2d ed, 2008), p.122; italics in original.

Quote Log: Reason's Imperialist Flag

"Reason is avidly imperialistic, attempting to plant its victory flag over every dimension of thought whether it belongs there or not."
-- David Crump’s book Encountering Jesus, Encountering Scripture: Reading the Bible Critically in Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), page 119, quoted by Bob Yarborough in "The Future of Cognitive Reverence for the Bible" in JETS, vol. 57, no.1 (2014), pages 5-18.

I take that quote to mean: although reason is powerful and necessary, we are tempted to believe that it will resolve issues in every sphere of our beings, such as emotions or worship or praxis -- and it won't.

My Checklist for Blog Posts

Here is the checklist I have compiled that I go through before posting a blog post:

-- Am I using character formatting (bold, italic, underline, etc.) appropriately, or did I leave in * * and _ _ where I don't need to?

-- Did I replace all my "todo: go look this up" notes in the body of the text?

-- Do all my paragraphs start with a topic sentence?

-- Is everything I say in line with the main idea of the post, or is there any "clutter"?

-- What am I doing to get and keep the reader interested in what I have to say?

-- Am I using headings, question and answer format, and lists (bulleted or numbered) effectively?

-- Does the content call for any breakout quotes or calls to action?

-- Should I add images to my post? Where shall I place them?

-- Do all my images have alternate text set?

-- In the body of the post, did I add a link wherever it would be appropriate? (Check my notes that go with the first draft.)
-- Do these links open in a new window so that they don't break the reader's focus on this page?
-- Is the anchor text for all my links descriptive of where the link goes?

-- If desired, do I end with a teaser ("Stay tuned," "More to come," "We will keep you updated," etc.)?

-- Is there a byline?

-- How does the blog post look? (Check gut reaction & revisit above questions as needed.)

-- Have I set the right categories and tags?
-- (This item is outdated: it may make one feel better.) Have I put good keywords in the keywords meta tag?

-- Does the title

•  have as many keywords as appropriate?
• not match one I've already used on this website?
• have no stop words? (or as few as good grammar permits)
• have no more than 60-65 characters?

-- Are the first three lines / excerpt / description meta tag what I want them to be: 

• Do they have as many keywords as appropriate?
• Does the description meta tag have no more than 155 characters?
• Will it get the reader's attention?

-- Did I proofread it one more time?
(One good tip: read it backwards, as suggested by the "SEO Guide to Creating Viral Linkbait and Infographics.")

And, finally, for more great ideas on writing blog posts, I've found my new favorite website is CopyBlogger:

• "The Art of Writing Great Google+ Posts"
• "How to Write Interesting Content for a 'Boring' Topic"
• "11 Common Blogging Mistakes That Are Wasting Your Audience’s Time"

"Like," or more?

I wish that our pop culture had a wider vocabulary than "like" to express interest, approval, pleasure, etc. I'm not sure we can blame it all on Facebook.

I do not have time to write a whole essay on this.

Quote Log: Ignatius to the Trallians

(Hereafter a "Quote Log" entry denotes a blog entry that consists of an interesting quote or two I found, sometimes with a little background.)

From the epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Trallians:

"Therefore I need gentleness, by which the ruler of this age is destroyed." (4:2) and again,

"Arm yourselves with gentleness." (8:1)

Translated by Michael W. Holmes in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (3d ed) published by Baker Academic (in Grand Rapids) in 2007. (Tralles was a city in Asia Minor; Ignatius wrote this early in the second century.)

Brief Thoughts on “A Grief Observed”

C. S. Lewis wrote A Grief Observed in 1961 after the death of his wife. It is in the form of a private journal written as he processes the emotions and thoughts that come right after her death (but there are no markers of what days these are written, so it is hard to tell how long this process takes). I once heard that the book is not as “raw” or unedited as it appears, but that he edited it a little to make it more approachable and helpful for readers. Regardless of how edited it is, it is true that it was first published under a pseudonym. Whether that was because it was thought that more people would read it and be helped by it if it did not have Lewis' name on it, or because he was shy about revealing all these feelings to the public, or both, is a question that does not matter now. 

 This book contains a lot of strong feelings. What struck me in particular about these feelings when I read the book most recently was how culturally conditioned are our ideas about death, the feelings we have about loved ones dying, and what we think happens to people right after death. In the introduction to the book it is pointed out that the book is "a" grief observed; not grief in general, but one husband's grief in particular. Yes, psychologists tell us that, for everyone, grief is a process that has defined stages, but how Lewis feels during the process and about the process is particularly his own. There are stages for everyone, but what we imagine during grieving and how we think we ought to feel and express ourselves is strongly culturally influenced. I especially noticed that C. S. Lewis had a hard time believing that his wife was experiencing any conceivable afterlife; for most of the book, he tells how he feels like believing that he will never see her again. He knew as well as any Christian does that the Bible says everyone ends up in either Heaven or Hell, but I guess that materialism (the idea that people have no soul that lasts beyond death, but when someone dies, that is all, and they just pass out of existence) was so widespread an idea in the mid-twentieth century that his imagination and feelings have to struggle with it. How different that is, it struck me, from our contemporary images and assumptions about the afterlife in which dead people go to a pleasant place and see those who have preceded them! This made me wonder whether what I really think about Heaven and the afterlife owes much to the Bible or whether it really draws more from my cultural imagination and atmosphere. C. S. Lewis was firmly trained that if we want to believe something, that is a strong reason for being skeptical about it. Is our skepticism so well trained?

 If I had studied more about how twenty-first century Americans feel (and are expected to feel) when we process grief, I think we might detect even more cultural differences between Lewis' grief and what might be "typical." There is much more that can be said about this short (75 page) book, but let wiser and more experienced people than I say them.

A Review of Randy Alcorn's The Treasure Principle

I recommend Randy Alcorn's The Treasure Principle for anyone who is wondering why Christians give. More generally, anyone who wonders how and why being a Christian would make a difference in one's everyday life would benefit from this book. Among other books on this topic, this book stands out because it is concise and to the point (the main text is only 94 short pages with one-sentence summaries). Alcorn carefully shows that what he says has a solid Biblical foundation. He gives good illustrations so that readers will remember his main ideas, and he keeps his discussion practical, not just ideal.

The Treasure Principle's main topic is heavenly (as opposed to earthly) treasures, and its key text is Matt.6:19-21. Alcorn rubs the reader's nose in the fact that we cannot “take it with us;” all of our earthly possessions will eventually end up in the junkyard, but we can convert our earthly resources into heavenly treasures. Naturally, the next question is: What are “heavenly treasures”? Alcorn depicts these as what accrues when we give to further God's purposes, for example, when we have compassion on those who are in need or when we use our resources to affect people's souls (e.g., evangelization). For we are stewards of God's resources, which means our job is to use God's resources as He would like. God notices our actions and will reward us in heaven for our faithful stewardship; hence we call them “heavenly treasures” because they are rewards we get in heaven.

What Christian stewardship looks like depends on what kind of person one sees Jesus Christ as. Alcorn reminds us that Jesus has been gracious to us; He is good, and we can trust Him. Our generosity is a response to God's generosity to us; when Jesus calls Christians to be generous, He is not asking us to do anything He has not already done. Even gifts that are real sacrifices to us are imitations of His giving. Alcorn says that when God gives people more than they need, it is so that they can have more joy in giving, not so that they can spend more on themselves. Alcorn reminds us that having a life that is focused on possessions – a materialistic life – is really not joyful; rather, “Giving is the only antidote to materialism.”

Alcorn challenges his readers to see their resources (especially money) with the eyes of faith – a faith that recognizes that Jesus is the sovereign God over the whole world and can provide for His followers, which means Christians do not have to hoard earthly treasures. I was most challenged by Alcorn's exhortations to plan to give more than we think we can (in chapter 5) and to talk more about specific givers and giving projects in church (in chapter 6; his suggestions sounded almost competitive to me). I appreciate Alcorn's determination to stick closely to God's Word and how he lays out the principles of giving without sounding like one-size-fits-all; he acknowledges that different people do have different needs and, thus, different levels of what is “excess,” without toning down his challenge to most American Christians. If you want to read one Christian book about how and why to give, read this one.

Finally, for those who are curious right this minute: take a good look at Eternal Perspective Ministries, Randy Alcorn's website, for more from this author, or search for this book at Multnomah's website.

Book Log: Zorba the Greek

I bought Zorba the Greek at Belton's "Christmas on the Chisholm Trail" for $1 in order to read in the plane to & from Philadelphia. I'm glad I did; I very much enjoyed reading it. I want to read it again and make a list of all the new vocabulary.

It reminded me a little bit of some books by Hesse; for some time I thought the plot was going to be, "Chaste man finds what his heart is really missing and discovers the life of his emotions," but it's more complicated than that. Despite that the book's title says it's about Zorba, I think it's as least as much about the unnamed narrator and his friendships and emotions. (He obviously has very deep emotions even though he thinks his way thru life.)

Here's my first stab at the main questions it raises: What are the consequences of living life the way Zorba does? the way the narrator does? (and likewise the way other characters do: Dame Hortense, the peasants, monks, and the narrator's other friend?) To what degree is living life with Zorba's gusto desirable and achievable?

Then there are the contextual questions: How is Buddhism mixed up with this? What is the history of Greece and Crete in the time period depicted?